Peer Review Policy

Double-Blind Peer Review

A double-blind peer review technique is used by UNIMAS Journals, an anonymous peer review system in which the identity of the manuscript's author(s) is kept hidden from the reviewers. Before a manuscript is given to a reviewer, details that could reveal to a reviewer the author's identity in the manuscript are erased. When sending the reviewers' comments to the author(s), the reviewers' identities are likewise hidden from the author(s).

Because it limits possible bias from either the selected reviewers or the authors, UNIMAS Journals consider the double-blind peer review system to be a more effective review system.

The Peer Review Process

The editorial office is where the first stage of the review process takes place. Before being forwarded to external reviewers, the submitted manuscript is examined to confirm that it fits the journal's minimum requirements. The manuscript is checked for the following matters:

  • Scope: The article content is reviewed to confirm that it is within the scope of the journal.
  • Plagiarism: UNIMAS Journals employ the Turnitin plagiarism detection system. At this stage, manuscripts with significant similarities to other works (including the authors' previous works) are grounds for rejection. Additionally, in instances where substantial portions of the manuscript have textual overlap with previously published works by the authors (for example, in conference proceedings), the corresponding author should declare this in the manuscript. The Chief Editor of each UNIMAS journal reserves the right to evaluate and decide on each case. Upon completion of the evaluation, the similarity report is given to the author(s) with the decision to reject or resubmit the article.
  • Recent references: A significant percentage of citations should come from the last five years.
  • English Language: UNIMAS Journals publish full-text papers in English, and also in Malay for some journals. Abstracts may be translated into other languages and published alongside abstracts written in English.

Manuscripts are scrutinised for structure, organisation, correctness, and clarity of language and compliance with the Author Guidelines of the journals. Ensuring typographical and grammatical correctness of manuscripts is the responsibility of the author(s). Manuscripts not meeting these conditions will be returned to the authors.

When a manuscript has passed the editorial office review process, it is subjected to a double-blind review system. At least two external reviewers are chosen from the UNIMAS Journal database, the journal's editorial board, or other sources. These reviewers are subject matter experts in the field. Invitations to review are sent to the reviewers with attached abstracts. Once the reviewers agree to review the submission, the complete text of the manuscript is delivered to them after the author's identity has been hidden.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscripts and provide helpful feedback so that the author(s) can improve the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript is also judged on its originality, contribution, technical excellence, presentation clarity, and research depth. Finally, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept "as is"
  • Requires minor corrections
  • Requires major revisions
  • Reject. In the case of rejection, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript should not be further processed.

Following the reviewers' assessment, the assigned Associate Editor synthesizes the feedback from at least two reviewers and submits a formal recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief then evaluates this recommendation to decide whether the authors are allowed to proceed with revisions. If the Editor-in-Chief decides on rejection at this stage, the review process concludes immediately, and the authors are formally notified. If revisions are permitted, the authors will be invited to amend their manuscript.

Upon receipt of the Chief Editor’s decision and reviewers’ comments, the authors should make the required revision(s) and include their Response-To-Reviewers. These documents will allow the Chief Editor to make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept “as is”
  • Accept with minor corrections
  • Requires major corrections
  • Resend for a new round of review
  • Reject

Manuscripts that have been accepted "as is" will be published. Manuscripts requiring minor or major revisions are returned to the author(s) to implement the editor's suggestions. Upon resubmission, the Chief Editor re-examines the manuscripts before accepting them for publication. The Chief Editor may require authors to make additional corrections in some cases. In other instances, the Chief Editor may request that the revised manuscript, with (or without) further modifications, be sent to a specific reviewer who has previously reviewed the manuscript before it is accepted for publication.

To ensure absolute transparency, four specific dates; received, revised, accepted, and published, are permanently recorded and displayed on the final full text (PDF) and the dedicated web page of all articles.

Exceptions

All research articles, review articles, and short communications undergo the standard double-blind peer-review process. Editorial Opinions authored by the Editorial Board may be exempt from standard external peer review, subject to the discretion of the Chief Editor.